(06-17-2022, 12:10 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Go to Canada then. The Constitution is the greatest document ever written. You can make amendments but the Founding fathers
did the best they could at the time.

I actually been to Canada and it's pretty nice.  

All I'm saying is that maybe it was the greatest document ever written (for those it benefited), but we can't ignore the fact it wasn't for everyone, and wasn't meant to be set in stone. 

And our Founding Fathers would be outraged to know it's being used for everyone. It's being taken out of schools but our "Founding Fathers" aren't anyone to be placed on the pedestal some place them on given their history of rape, murder, and incest....

(06-17-2022, 12:25 PM)jj22 Wrote: I actually been to Canada and it's pretty nice.  

All I'm saying is that maybe it was the greatest document ever written (for those it benefited), but we can't ignore the fact it wasn't for everyone, and wasn't meant to be set in stone. 

And our Founding Fathers would be outraged to know it's being used for everyone. It's being taken out of schools but our "Founding Fathers" aren't anyone to be placed on the pedestal some place them on.

Okay, guess I can agree with some of that JJ22. Lets end on this note, I agree the Constitution shouldn't be set in stone.

(06-15-2022, 12:59 AM)Toy Cannon Wrote: “With everything that’s going on, if you’re not going to outlaw everything, you’ve got to at least make it harder to get those crazy guns that everybody’s using,” Burrow told reporters.

I'm not much of a gun person, does anyone know which guns are "crazy guns"?

Also, which guns does he think "everybody’s using"?  Reporters need to follow up on this to get clarification.

Weapons that can cause mass destruction. What you determine is mass destruction is probably different than someone else, but in the future if you could own your own mini nuclear weapon - what's stopping you?

The constitution is old, there are amendments, imagine in 5000 years people are still arguing on whether or not they are allowed to press a button that could blow up the planet because the constitution says so.

The intent as I gather as to be able to form a militia. Both "sides" believe in this, but it appears one "side" does not want to regulate it. Regardless of both sides, you won't be to beat an army who owns guns and weapons of mass destruction.

This is why people "hate" LeBron and Burrow shares the same views, they don't want to destroy the "Godly" image of Joe Burrow by him speaking his mind, but that's what Burrow does best.

(06-17-2022, 11:59 AM)jj22 Wrote: This is confusing on multiple fronts. You don't have to "speak" to get protected by that "right"?. 

And you shouldn't have to jump though hoops to be protected by the 2nd right.

(06-17-2022, 12:29 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Okay, guess I can agree with some of that JJ22. Lets end on this note, I agree the Constitution shouldn't be set in stone.

And I have a great deal of respect for the constitution. I just want to highlight some points as far as perspective. 

(06-17-2022, 12:04 PM)jj22 Wrote: The constitution is overrated anyway. It wasn't even wrote for a significant number of Americans (Women/African Americans/Diseased/Disabled) which is why it has had to be amended over time. Far more then politicians would like you to believe. So the idea that it can't be amended has long been false.

It can be, and there is a process that must be followed.

(06-17-2022, 12:29 PM)reuben.ahmed Wrote: Weapons that can cause mass destruction. What you determine is mass destruction is probably different than someone else, but in the future if you could own your own mini nuclear weapon - what's stopping you?

The constitution is old, there are amendments, imagine in 5000 years people are still arguing on whether or not they are allowed to press a button that could blow up the planet because the constitution says so.

The intent as I gather as to be able to form a militia. Both "sides" believe in this, but it appears one "side" does not want to regulate it. Regardless of both sides, you won't be to beat an army who owns guns and weapons of mass destruction.

This is why people "hate" LeBron and Burrow shares the same views, they don't want to destroy the "Godly" image of Joe Burrow by him speaking his mind, but that's what Burrow does best.

The SC has ruled it is an individual right, not only for militia. That is settled law. As for not being able to beat an army with guns and wmd's, tell that to the Taliban

(06-17-2022, 12:10 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote: Go to Canada then. The Constitution is the greatest document ever written. You can make amendments but the Founding fathers
did the best they could at the time.

I 100% understand that you're a true, blue American, Nate, but there are probably thousands of literary documents that are objectively better than the US Constitution.

(06-17-2022, 12:06 PM)Tony Wrote: Ya I get it.. I don't identify as either myself anymore.. 

I haven't for a very long time....

(06-17-2022, 12:38 PM)Sled21 Wrote: As for not being able to beat an army with guns and wmd's, tell that to the Taliban

When did the Taliban take over the UNited Sates?  I must have missed that.

BTW I have family member who are/wer in the US military and I find it insulting for people to suggest that they would just blindly start killing fellow American citizens.  You must have a very low opinion of our current military members.

(06-17-2022, 12:33 PM)Sled21 Wrote: And you shouldn't have to jump though hoops to be protected by the 2nd right.

You absolutely should when public safety is an issue.  And courts recognize this.  That is why you can't just go buy a rocket launcher or fully automatic weapon without "jumping through some hoops"

We have freedom of speech but you can go to jail for inciting a riot.  Public safety has always been more important than unlimited Constitutional rights.

(06-17-2022, 12:25 PM)jj22 Wrote: All I'm saying is that maybe it was the greatest document ever written (for those it benefited), but we can't ignore the fact it wasn't for everyone, and wasn't meant to be set in stone. 

You are completely missing the point.  The fact that the Constitution contained the rules to change it is what makes it so great.  It was designed to adapt to changes in society.  

(06-17-2022, 12:38 PM)Sled21 Wrote: That is settled law.

We are about to see if SC rulings really are settled law.... 

(06-17-2022, 01:10 PM)fredtoast Wrote: You are completely missing the point.  The fact that the Constitution contained the rules to change it is what makes it so great.  It was designed to adapt to changes in society.  

I'm not arguing it's set in stone... Or that it isn't "great". Overrated in the since there's the belief it is set in stone. As fed to us by politicians who ignore the facts you just pointed out and get away with it.

(06-17-2022, 11:46 AM)Sled21 Wrote: A law is only good for one thing, controlling the people who obey the laws. They do nothing to dissuade those who don't.

WTF???

So you are saying that laws against things like child labor and slavery had no effect?

I don't know how to even address such an absurd argument.

(06-16-2022, 08:25 PM)Tony Wrote: January 6th was no different than  any BLM protest where they burnt everything too the ground.

yes it was very different.

If BLM had rioted and blocked voting cites; or attempted to destroy voting machines: or threatened voters with violence then it would be the same thing.

But they were nothing alike.  The January 6 riot was about overturning a valid election.  It was an attack on Democracy.  BLM, on the other hand, encourages voting to elect representatives to address changes in the law.

(06-17-2022, 11:42 AM)Sled21 Wrote: Red Herring people love to throw out there, but is meaningless. Driving is not a Constitutional Right, owning firearms if you wish to is. It would probably be a lot easier if we made people speak proper English and know what they are talking about before they were allowed to say something, but we don't make them pass English 101 before allowing them free speech.

Actually it was not a Red Herring at all.  Public safety issues have the same legal effect on "privileges" as they do "constitutional rights".  Anyone with a 7th grade education on civics knows this.

Perhaps it would be easier if we educated people about the limits on "free speech" and many other "Constitutional rights" so they would know what they are talking about before they make statements like this.

(06-16-2022, 09:49 PM)Nate (formerly eliminate08) Wrote:  There are also many reasons like states like mine in Wyoming have hardly any gun violence where we have hardly any gun laws.

Ahem,

Wyoming Firearms Death Rate (worldlifeexpectancy.com)

I'm glad to see this thread go this direction for this long without anyone getting stupid about it.

(06-17-2022, 11:46 AM)Sled21 Wrote: And places like DC, Chicago, Detroit, etc. have the most stringent licensing and registration laws. How's that working keeping guns out of the hands of criminals? As an attorney, I would think you would understand the term criminal. 

Actually I know a lot more about this than you do.

There is a huge criminal business of supplying guns to criminals.  And it is almost impossible to stop because we don't have licensing and registrations laws.  If a city passes a gun control law then all you have to do is drive a few miles or order one on the internet.

Imagin trying to enforce stolen car laws if there were no registration requirements for owners of cars.  That is what law enforcement is dealing with right now.  No one is afraid to sell a gun to a criminal because it can't be traced back to them.  If police stop a car with a load of convicted felons and guns all they need is one non-felon to claim ownership of the guns.

The NRA does not support gun ownership for law abiding citizens.  Criminals are a huge market for guns and the NRA just cares about the profits of gun makers instead of public safety.  That is why they fight so hard to make sure criminals have such easy access to guns.